Enough of this already!

It's been a few days since the proverbial excrement hit the air mover, and it never ceases to amaze me how quickly people will jump on the bandwagon of public opinion without having the facts:

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”

What, in your mind, is sinful?

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

And this...

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

My God!  The man stated his own viewpoint!  His own preferences.  And sorry to the homosexual community in case you didn't already know this:  Most denominations of Christianity view homosexuality as a sin.  They also view sex outside of marriage as sinful, even heterosexual sex.  Guess what?  Many heterosexual Christians have pre- and extra-marital sex.  Where's the media blitz on a preacher or religiously-conservative family telling them that it's sinful?

Or is it because gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders have armed themselves with pseudo-science, arguing that they were, to quote Lady Gaga, "born this way"?  I've always been amused by that.  If scientists ever identify the gene or genes in our DNA, if they exist, that encourage a preference to deviant behavior (in that it deviates from the mathematical norm), will we see abortions of people if they have that gene or genes, much like we now see sex-selective abortions if couples don't want a boy or girl?

But if no GLBT gene or genes exist, then logic tells us such behavior is learned, not innate.  In which case, the pray-away-the-gay crowd, while personally a bit odd to me, isn't illogical.  If the Christian viewpoint is simply that we needn't give into our basest desires like animals do, that we can be spiritually enlightened by contributing to a stable, nuclear family, where's the counter-argument?  A village is a collection of people, but families help it grow and thrive.  Despite all the advances of science, human life still can only be created by combining sperm and egg, be it in a woman's uterus or in a test tube.  But the creation of human life is not enough, it must be cultivated in an environment of love.  Now there are couples that hit rough patches.  What keeps them together?  For the sake of the children?  Why?  Love.  Is love enough?

Christianity, along with other religions, put a guarantee on this:  Marriages in the Christian faith are covenants made in the presence of God.  Husband and wife promise themselves to the other before God, an oath with more weight to it than a legal document.  Unlike a legal marriage, which provides for divorce (and subsequently leaves any offspring to potentially fend for themselves before they are ready for the world), an oath made to God is intended to keep parents together and in physical, spiritual, and emotional union only with each other.  Men and women would not indulge their animal desires to bed multiple partners, be they of opposite sex or same.  The end result?  Stability, which fosters growth and maturity on an individual scale as well as a societal one.

And Robertson's crime?  Expressing his viewpoint that any other kind of behavior was sinful.  That it wasn't logical.  To Robertson, it isn't.  Homosexual couples can't conceive, one of the primary purposes of Christian marriage.  To be fair, some straight couples can't conceive either, but we're talking about comparing the exception with the immutable rule.

In the eyes of the perpetually-outraged, Robertson managed to offend another group:

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

 Notice Robertson said that he never saw the mistreatment of a black person.   He's not saying it didn't happen.  Just that he didn't see it.  Is it possible he's being naive?  Yes, it's possible.  It would help to know the context of the question.

But the attitudes of so many "enlightened" northern liberals (and their southern counterparts) seems like they think that all southern, Christian whites do to this day is oppress blacks.  Yes, there are bigots in the South.  I've come across quite a few in the North too.  The difference?  Northern bigots are quieter about it.  Some  may think they're helping blacks by making special rules for them, by giving them preferential treatment.  The reality is every time they treat blacks differently, they demean them. 

And that's nothing to feel smug or superior about.

They demean the "color-blind" attitudes of conservatives as being blind to the plight of minorities.  I'm sorry, when does the pity party end?  When can we stop reminding those that did not visit atrocities upon others because of their skin color, gender, or sexual preference of how terrible they are for not joining the mob?